Not flaming you, but ... a scientifically weak response from you. Here’s why:
I did not, specifically and deliberately, write that methane IS insoluble. Only YOU used the word “completely”. No real scientist disputes facts— but DOES dispute hypotheses, methods, conclusions and conjecture; and factually CH4 does (barely) dissolve in sea water. But let’s stick to what that really means, especially compared to other gases that dissociate in water, and also those that have a biological impact.
Secondly, CH4 gas solubility *IS* well documented and in comparison to other biologically active gases like CO2 or H2S is and was (temporarily) present in the cold salt water as a solute at metabolically insignificant levels. ie it had NO effect on the biome.
Thirdly, CH4 gas is (AIR) NON-TOXIC to aerobic marine life, except in suffocating quantities.
Fourth - A release of CH4 gas into the cold depths of the Gulf would NATURALLY cause an ostensibly detectable increase in dissolved methane, which, absent ANY biological activity, WOULD obey the laws of physics and known gas laws and NATURALLY return to a steady state based on solubility, temperature pressure and salinity/ionization.
Fifth - To claim that the thousands of tons of released gaseous methane would dissolve into the sea water in quantities sufficient to support a bloom in (some heretofore unknown) bacteria that thrive on CH4 is absurd. Did you look at the fractions in the release? By volume and mass, the CH4 fraction was huge, even in comparison to the volume of crude released. We even had a discussion about this on FR. I can’t find that thread of course. Were this a spill of organic iron or phosphate compounds, we’d have a real bloom/death on our hands. (nee the Gulf dead zone)
Fifth - marine biologists are well aware of (naturally occurring) bacteria that are happy to ‘gobble up’ hydrocarbons - ESPECIALLY dissolved or colloidal/emulsified liquid (higher molecular weight) hydrocarbons. I’ve since forgotten the genus/species. The lower molecular weight hydrocarbons and the aromatics DO tend to dissipate faster (either by evaporation, dissolution or biological consumption) while the heavier ones DO tend to form the more persistent tar balls we see. They take longer to metabolize and dissipate.
Sixth: “scientists” used to believe the sun revolved around the earth and burned heretics who reported the contrary. I am confident about what I have written. But. *IF* a good bit of research showed me I am wrong, and my ‘knowledge’ is shown to be a ‘belief’ ... I will (un)happily eat crow and become an ardent and strident convert to methane gas disaster believer.
Net: bacteria naturally metabolize oil spills, and this is NOT news. Also to report that bacteria are the reason methane GAS from a benthic release has gone away is scientifically and biologically absurd.
I sincerely enjoy the debate. Please do not infer any personal animus or attack.
FRegards,
Blueflag
Actually, “your” response is weak, and doesn’t address my point. The low solubility of methane in seawater does not preclude the dissolution of quite large total amounts, even at low levels of solubility. The Gulf is a big place. That amount may indeed be a very small fraction of the total methane emitted, but plenty large enough to cause a bacterial bloom. After all, the oceanographers MEASURED a dissolved methane level that was quite high compared to normal backgrounds. That is now gone. Where did it go?? I assume that those folks are sufficiently learned to know what the standard “decay curve” of methane concentration is with time in the absence of bacteria, as those are WELL known simple physical processes (per my linked paper). They are saying that the methane disappeared much more quickly than expected. At this point, I don’t see any reason to doubt them, and I do see reason to doubt you.